About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

San Francisco 6, Avalos 6, Ms. Lam 5, Campos 2, Chiu 2, Richardson 1, Danny 1, Ms. Rogers 1, Caltrans 1, Lams 1, Emily Rogers 1, Beverly 1, United States 1, Submittable 1, Farrell 1, Devon 1, Landscaping 1, The City 1, City 1, California 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    January 20, 2013
    8:30 - 9:00pm PST  

8:30pm
>> members of the board of supervisors, ray hard, director of open government, as the hawaiian say, happy new year. the first two speakers, i would like to concur with the remark. this is a legal process. these people are here and they are exercising their rights to appeal to this board of supervisors. if the board of supervisors will not sit and actually listen you are denying due process. i will be going to my lawyer
8:31pm
and asking whether or not we got an appeal hearing. this board needs to understand that often in the city the only chance that any citizens has actually speak to the representatives or to this body as a whole is in this chamber. if you cannot respect people exercising their constitutional rights, you should be ashamed. you took an oath just last week to support and defend the constitution of the united states and of the state of california. being respectful during the public comment is a minimum you can do. >> good afternoon board of supervisors. i want to agree with the other citizens of san francisco that spoken this issue.
8:32pm
if i own property and got i don't own property in san francisco i would be appalled. this lady is trying to appeal to you all. come on now. thank you. >> are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the appellant. seeing none, let's hear from the city departments public works and planning, >> good afternoon this is bruce -- city and county surveyor. we receive the application in august of 2012. in the application, submittable in september 25. received approval from the planning department on oct. 24,
8:33pm
and granted tentative approval on december 10. received the appeal on january 4. we of course don't have any issues with this; wanted to grant tentative approval. >> terms of the board emily rogers, but slate of affairs for the planning department. you have the written material submitted. no reason why the subdivision should not be approved. the changes are minor. the changes to the location of the retaining wall, and the reduction to the footprint. these matters are not pertinent to the subdivision. there matters a concerned the building permit and should be appealed if that is a concern.
8:34pm
second the written materials the appellant cited the change of ownership and is not a matter of the subdivision. the location and design of the housing is not related to the subdivision. the subdivision is where the lot line should be. the design of the location of the housing -- when the planning department reviews the subdivision application we asked the question is this project consistent with the general plan? in this case both the commission and the department, the answer was a resounding yes. the project will transform previously unused public land to affordable housing. this project was considered in 2010. many of the commission finds that you approved discuss the provision of affordable family home ownership housing that will be provided. at the time of your approval it was anticipated there would
8:35pm
be four affordable units and this was widely lauded. since that time this is been bought by habitat for humanity which has kept the family size transformed hundred percent of the units to affordable housing. this is not even more compliant with the general plan including the 2009 update. there has been no reason as to why the lot lines should not be drawn as proposed in with that we urge you to support this project. >> president: any questions from city staff? supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos: emory can you talk about the permit and environmental review about this project.
8:36pm
you know what public process this is gone through? >> planning commission approved the conditional use; sql foundings. the rezoning was sent before the board of supervisors which incorporated the general plan findings into your actions. that was also in august 3, 2010. >> thank you. >> president: why don't we go to the presentation of the real party interest. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is meredith -- habitat for humanity greater san francisco. as you heard from the city and county supervisor, the map was approved.
8:37pm
with numerous conditions. habitat has no objections to any of the conditions and will work directly with city staff to make sure all commissions are addressed. habitat purchased one acre site and its entitlement in may, 2012. in advance of habitat taking ownership, habitat staff and consultants met with city staff, between june 2011 and february, 2012. outreach is an extensive. the proposed - as ms. rogers mentioned - the proposed development is in keeping with the project approved by the planning commission in 2010.
8:38pm
the footprint remains the same. is now 100 percent affordable; units will be sold to qualified households earning between 50-80% of ami. 500 hours of sweat equity will be in lieu of a down payment. applicants must meet certain income guidelines, have minimum credit, and be able to perform the sweat equity. three-story, single-family townhomes, 11 2 bedroom units and 17 3 bedroom units.
8:39pm
the site does present challenges. historically the grading of the area has happened a bowl, considerably lower than the connection point to -- boulevard. especially true to the condition behind ms. lam's home. to provide for overland release of drainage should there be any issue, the project is designed with a retaining wall, and raises a grade for the drainage pattern. in addition there are no windows on the habitat homes facing ms. lams' property also for privacy. since closing on the side habitat has met with neighbors over the past years to discuss the development
8:40pm
plans and to listen to neighbors concerns. we have sent letters, conducted door-to-door outreach and have met with small groups. specifically we spoke with ms. lam have a dozen times on the phone and in person and are committed to work with her to look at alternative options for her plants currently situated on our property. this could include installing planters utilizing help from our volunteers. we are proud of the work in san francisco. we respectfully request that you denied this appeal. >> any questions? any members of the public who wish to speak in behalf of the real party of interest? okay. if not, let me ask the appellant if you could please
8:41pm
step back up for up to three minutes for a rebuttal. >> we have met and we talked several times to work something out. the fact of the matter was there was an oral agreement between me and danny, another they are the owners there is a breach of contract. they're trying to take that back. i am supportive of the organization, and supportive of the project this is still a breach of an oral contract. if i am not able to get support on this i will go ahead and try to appeal the permit before mentioned. i work 9-5, this is a home that i work hard and bought for my parents. my dad is 83 years old,
8:42pm
he had a stroke, i pick him up every day. and asking for compassion and consideration and understanding that this is a breach of contract. they came door-to-door to speak with everyone. as beverly mentioned that father has limited english. i work 9 to 5. i am not home to know who comes by the house from 9 to 5, door to door. the community is not happy about this. the area is mostly seniors. to see this happening to another fellow citizen is not right. thank you for your consideration. supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen: i want to make sure i understand exactly your issue. there was a promise made to you
8:43pm
for the land in the back of your house? >> yes behind our back yard. >> that you would have unfettered access to. >> yes. our house is the first one before the end. our yard runs a quarter of the size of everyone else. he allowed us to use the eight square-foot area. >> based on the plans put forward it would eliminate your father's ability to garden. >> exactly. >> mr. chair, may have an opportunity to call back up and to talk to the members of habitat? >> absolutely. >> mr. devon richardson or --
8:44pm
>> president: if we could ask our habitat of humanity person to come up. >> is there open space? >> there are private backyards, 26 of the homes are built along the edge that faces highway 280, that caltrans property. they all have private backyards and access to that. >> what i am asking, is a roman the plans or room for some kind of shared public space? to take into consideration the community in existence to facilitate a sense of community? >> unfortunately the site is so tight that we don't have any common area.
8:45pm
no space for it unfortunately. right now, the open space, landscaping that is behind this land's backyard is part of a retaining wall system. >> president: supervisor cohen, do you mind speaking little closer to the microphone? perfect. >> supervisor cohen: is there a way to figure out how we can negotiate happy medium? i am thinking of ms. lam's father could volunteer services and help with landscaping, our volunteer and do some kind of gardening and did you homes that are going to be built? it seems like habitat of
8:46pm
humanity is a worthy cause and lord knows we need affordable housing. and to rob a senior of the pure joy of gardening is a little off-putting. i wonder if we can come together and bring the two parts together to have that conversation. >> absolutely. we started that conversation with ms. lam, trying to think creatively around how we can make something work. because of the space is still tight there, this is exactly the kind of conversation we want to continue to have. we utilize volunteers for all stages of development. it is a terrific idea frankly to incorporate maybe some of the landscaping and including him in that process. >> ms. lam?
8:47pm
do you think your father would be interested in volunteering his services? >> my dad would be interested. the problem is that he has a tough time getting around. the way that it is now, there is the fence back there, and we have created a door to give them access to that area within the fence. he does not have to leave the house in order to be able to do this. they're going to put a retaining wall and a shrub, the shrub will be about the same size as the garden. i am not asking to own the property. i am happy to buy it; willing to sign waivers of liability a what have you to make it to where they will not be liable for anything that could possibly happen.
8:48pm
is really just for my dad to have access to the area to garden. if there will be a shrub behind the wall, why not just move it up? they just don't want to because it could potentially delay the project. >> that's it for my questions mr. chair, mr. president. i would like to go on record and ask that habitat for humanity reconsider their position. sound like a small request. you are in the business of building communities and hopefully you will work with ms. lam and her family, to where her father can help with the landscape or the property.
8:49pm
out of the many problems we see, this is a nice one to put it nicely. thank you very much. >> supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos: before the board meeting today i was in my office with the appellant, ms. lam and with habitat for humanity, trying to see what we could do a negotiate some kind of settlement separate from this appeal. i really feel that the appeal does not have strong merit. i will not be supporting or upholding the appeal. having said that i still believe that there is some agreement, some negotiation that can continue on access not necessarily access to property for
8:50pm
gardening for ms. lam's 83-year old father, but habitat is made an offer to help build the growing areas within ms. lam's yard with volunteers and that is significant. we are seeing 28 new units of affordable housing. we have not seen anything like that. we are talking about a program about how to make low income families economically viable to on their own homes. those are significant things. the best accommodation is to build something worthwhile in ms. lam's backyard or
8:51pm
finding other resources than the neighborhood that can assist her grandfather. i will not be supporting the appeal. and would like to motion to table item 27. and approve -- actually approve item 28 and table items 29 and 30. >> president: let me close the hearing. are there questions? supervisor chiu. >> supervisor chiu: not a question but i'm hearing from habitat if you're willing to resolve the issue. i appreciate hearing that from habitat directly. i will second supervisor
8:52pm
avalos's motion; the merits of the appeal, they have not been significant changes to grant the appeal on the parcel map. that is the right motion to make. as he also mentioned, the opportunity to build single-family affordable units is something that is rare in the city. it is an opportunity for homeownership for individuals of the different income level that typically have not had the opportunity to purchase homes. when i first read it, it is one of the amazing projects rarely see, heartened by the fact that habitat is willing to work with ms. lam to resolve the issue. >> president: the hearing is final. supervisor avalos has made a motion that we approve the decision of dbw, second it by supervisor chiu.
8:53pm
any further discussion? roll call vote. madam clerk. >> >> supervisor breed: aye >> supervisor cohen: aye >> supervisor farrell: aye >> supervisor kim: aye >> supervisor mar: aye >> supervisor wiener: aye >> supervisor yee: aye >> supervisor avalos: aye >> president: motion approved. tentative map is approved. let's go back to item 20. >> can we do this same house same call. , ordinance passed first reading . item 21.
8:54pm
>> supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: this is an exciting item to landmark twin peaks tavern, on castor street. an exciting day for the castro and lgbt community. the bar has recently celebrated its fortieth anniversary. twin peaks was the first gay bar to be open and visible from the street in terms of windows where you could see inside the bar. that was a huge step. and a coming up for our community for so many years gay bars have been hidden away so you cannot see inside. it was very secretive. as our community cannot, twin peaks helped lead the way
8:55pm
by having a bar. you could see who was inside. it welcomes all ages. we have a continuing challenge in the lgbt community of celebrating youth to the point that sometimes older lgbt people don't feel welcome in the community. in twin peaks you see young people and old people and everyone in between together and building community. i want to thank the planning staff. tim bryant, mayor brown i hear from planning and the department has done a lot of great work on this land marking and i am fully supportive. i ask for your support. >> president: supervisor campos.
8:56pm
>> supervisor campos: i would like to thank supervisor wiener and would like to be added as a cosponsor. >> president: without objection this is past on first reading. item 22. >> amends lower distribution of smoking residential rental units designate units a smoke-free or smoking optional. >> this ordinance is important to help increase the number of smoke-free apartment buildings in our city. it brings together landlords and tenants organizations to help inform prospective renters of possible sources of second hand smoking buildings. i will like to thank the san francisco department association and housing rights, and my legislative staff for doing hard work on this ordinance. the hazards of secondhand smoke as we heard earlier well documented.
8:57pm
is a killer of 49,000 people each year, 3,000 from lung cancer, 46,000 from heart disease. the smoke seeps into your unit. this can result in a prospective tenant finding out that they are exposed to secondhand smoke after they signed the lease. this policy will allow prospective tenants to make informed decision about the unit under consideration and if it meets their needs disclosure also benefits landlords. the smoke-free housing
8:58pm
policy requires that owners designate units is either smoke-free or smoke, optional. no leases can be change midway. once the designations are made owners must include the designation, and to any applicant prior to entering the lease agreement. this list will be updated and available to all tenants. for owners of 50 units or less in the city have one year to comply; orders of 50 units or more have two years. this ordinance would bring san francisco in line with other cities that have similar policies. it is meant to encourage disclosure. as such there is no enforcement
8:59pm
mechanism built into it i strongly urge your support. >> supervisor yee. >> supervisor yee: i will be supporting this. have not had an opportunity to discuss this with you or anyone else. one of my concerns - could be something that the department of health or whoever is going to enforce this. the fact that you have two categories. 50 or less, 50 or more. how do we educate those landlords that basically are

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)